Exactly! And how some groups continue to complain about the suffering of their ancestors, even though they personally do not experience it (yet they still want to be repaid for suffering they did not endure. It's as if they are the only people in the history of the world who had to overcome some sort of an obstacle.

Exactly! And how some groups continue to complain about the suffering of their ancestors, even though they personally do not experience it (yet they still want to be repaid for suffering they did not endure. It's as if they are the only people in the history of the world who had to overcome some sort of an obstacle.

It's so great to live in a world where certain groups (say, African-Americans) whose ancestors suffered no longer face any kind of discrimination at all.

Slavery began in the United States around 1619 and continued through the end of the Civil War in 1865 (246 years).

Following the end of slavery, African Americans faced the "separate but equal" lunacy of the Jim Crow era until 1964 (99 years).

Individuals of African descent have been in the United States for roughly 388 years. Of these, they have faced harsh discrimation for 345 years.

Now we expect all African Americans to compete with us. Is this fair? I think not.

President Lyndon B. Johnson compared affirmative action to a race. Two men start at the same time, but one is in shackles and chains. If the chains are removed halfway through the race, he cannot be expected to compete with the other man, who is far ahead of him.

Slavery began in the United States around 1619 and continued through the end of the Civil War in 1865 (246 years).

Following the end of slavery, African Americans faced the "separate but equal" lunacy of the Jim Crow era until 1964 (99 years).

Individuals of African descent have been in the United States for roughly 388 years. Of these, they have faced harsh discrimation for 345 years.

Now we expect all African Americans to compete with us. Is this fair? I think not.

President Lyndon B. Johnson compared affirmative action to a race. Two men start at the same time, but one is in shackles and chains. If the chains are removed halfway through the race, he cannot be expected to compete with the other man, who is far ahead of him.

Slavery began in the United States around 1619 and continued through the end of the Civil War in 1865 (246 years).

Following the end of slavery, African Americans faced the "separate but equal" lunacy of the Jim Crow era until 1964 (99 years).

Individuals of African descent have been in the United States for roughly 388 years. Of these, they have faced harsh discrimation for 345 years.

Now we expect all African Americans to compete with us. Is this fair? I think not.

President Lyndon B. Johnson compared affirmative action to a race. Two men start at the same time, but one is in shackles and chains. If the chains are removed halfway through the race, he cannot be expected to compete with the other man, who is far ahead of him.

What a perfect analogy for us to consider.

very well stated. But I think many people who oppose AA oppose not the policy itself, but the way it is implemented. A lot of minorities who benefit from AA come from successful families. If AA was made to be based on an economic status then, in my opinion, it would serve its purpose better, benefiting those who really need help.

None of the AA supporters (as far as I know) has denied that economic status should be a factor in admissions decisions.

However, every new wave of anti-AA folk seem to think the concept of economic status as a replacement to the present regime to be somehow novel or interesting. This is not the case. We've heard it dozens, hundreds of times.

We've put forth the idea that although poverty is a burden, it's a burden independent from racial discrimination, which is a separate burden entirely. There can be multiple burdens on a person. Economic status does not subsume everything else.

So, to those of you who think you're clever in positing an economic test as a replacement for the status quo: No. You're not. In fact, I agree that economic status is important (and we, since I obviously speak for every rational person ). All you've done is circumvent discussion of why you feel certain people haven't been burdened by racial discrimination, and why such people shouldn't get consideration separate from their economic status. Congrats.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.